[FC-discuss] GBS and Students: Ryan Radia of CEI on Fearing .Gov, Not .Com

[FreeCulture.org - Students for Free Culture]

Writes Kevin Donovan on our blog:

_Although it is being _[_modified_][1]_, in the interest of better
informing students about the Google Books Settlement, Students for Free
Culture has solicited the thoughts of a variety of experts who are
providing guest posts reflecting on how the settlement will likely
impact students._

_In this guest post, [Ryan Radia][2], an information policy analyst at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that the privacy concerns
raised by the settlement are not convincing. _

Wonder why practically every student today uses Gmail, YouTube, or some
other Google service? Chances are it’s because they’re free. Designing
and running these services, however, is not.

So how does Google make enough money to fund its services when it
doesn’t charge the vast majority of its users? Simple: Advertising,
which accounts for 99% of Google’s revenue.

Online ads can be annoying – we’ve all encountered obtrusive pop-ups –
but they play a crucial role in online commerce. In 2008, advertisers
spent over $23 billion on Web ads. It’s no secret why so many firms buy
ads – done properly, advertising can build brand reputation, spur sales,
and inform potential customers. But perhaps the best part about
advertising is that it sustains free Web services.

Google Book Search is no exception. While Google would sell digital
books under the proposed settlement it’s reached with authors and
publishers, advertising would still likely generate a large share of
revenue for Google Books.

This is great news for authors and readers alike. Authors would earn the
majority of ad revenues (63%, according to the latest version of the
settlement). Users would also benefit, because the Google Book deal
would allow anybody in the U.S. to freely search and browse tens of
millions of currently unavailable books.

Yet not everyone is happy about the deal. The Electronic Frontier
Foundation, ACLU, and others have called for strict limits on the data
Google may collect from Book Search users. The groups argue that storing
detailed information about what books individuals read and purchase
would violate readers’ privacy.

These groups forget that data collection and strong privacy protections
can and do coexist. Amazon’s Kindle, a portable reading device that has
sold millions of digital books, stores extensive data on its users. ACLU
and EFF haven’t identified a single actual harm that’s resulted from a
breach involving Kindle, or any other digital book service for that
matter.

Google’s business depends on user trust, so it has a huge incentive to
keep user data as safe as possible.

Google’s critics should turn their attention to the real privacy threat:
Government. To date, courts have refused to apply Fourth Amendment
protections to data stored with “cloud” services like Google’s. Thus, a
mere subpoena – civil or criminal – is all it takes to force Google to
disclose user information to the feds.

ACLU and EFF argue that limiting Google’s data collection reduces the
chances that courts will get a hold of personal data. Fair enough. But
limiting data collection has serious downsides. Without individualized
data, advertisers cannot target ads, meaning users are far more likely
to see “dumb” ads. Because users don’t click on these ads as often,
advertisers earn less revenue, and authors earn less money. Worse, dumb
ads undercut Google’s revenue, reducing its incentive to invest in
scanning orphan works.

Limiting government’s power to obtain personal data is a far better
solution to privacy concerns than saddling Google with onerous data
collection limits.

For its part, Google could help further privacy without endangering
advertising by disclosing how many “enforceable requests” for user data
it receives, and explaining how it decides whether to challenge court
orders that demand user information.

Moreover, concerned users can always adopt privacy-enhancing
technologies that protect anonymity and limit data collection on an
individualized basis. And traditional libraries, which offer strong
privacy protections, aren’t going anywhere.

But let’s not forget that the real privacy violator is the government,
not Google.

- Ryan Radia

**Previous Posts in This Series**

  * [Introduction][3]

  * [Derek Slater of Google][4]

  * [Rebecca Jeschke of EFF][5]

  * [James Grimmelmann of NYLS][6]

  * [Brandon Butler of ARL][7]

  * [Ed Van Gemert of UW-Wisconsin][8]

  * [][8][Jason Schultz of UC Berkeley][9]

   [1]: http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/09/22/gbs_motion_to_adjourn
_the_fairness_hearing

   [2]: http://cei.org/people/ryan-radia

   [3]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/22/what-does-the-google-
book-search-settlement-mean-for-students/

   [4]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/23/gbs-and-students-derek-
slater-of-google-on-the-democratization-culture/

   [5]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/24/gbs-and-students-eff-
privacy/

   [6]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/25/gbs-and-students-
grimmelmann-orphan-work/

   [7]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/28/gbs-and-students-arl-
equality-intellectual-freedom/

   [8]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/29/gbs-and-students-ed-van-
gemert-of-uw-madison-on-why-students-want-gbs

   [9]: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/09/30/gbs-and-students-schultz-
privacy/

URL: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/10/14/gbs-and-students-ryan-radia-of-cei-on-fearing-gov-not-com/